- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In what ways should these two standards be differentiated? 3.NF.1’s focus is on students learning that “1/b is the quantity formed by 1 part when a whole is partitioned into b equal parts” and that a/b is the quantity formed by a parts of size 1/b. 3.G.2 asks students to “partition shapes into equal parts and express the area of each part as as a unit fraction of the whole.” It seems obvious that we would use geometric shapes in 3.G.2 but are there other options for 3.NF.1? Can we use sets of items to represent the “whole?” Using only area of shapes for both of these seems like a bit much.
The whole could be the interval from 0 to 1 on the number line … this is the main representation the progression is heading towards (see 3.NF.2). The fractions progression suggests introducing set models in Grade 4, not in Grade 3.
In the fractions progressions document, it says “The whole can be a ……or any finite entity susceptible to subdivision and measurement.” Can you elaborate on specific examples of what that means (other than the shapes and the number line mentioned earlier)?
In 3.NF.2 the number lines go on to include not just 0 to 1, but also larger numbers that introduce students to fractions greater than one. If we are assessing 3.NF.1, should the “whole” referred to be a number line only from 0 to 1?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.